New iMac 27" 5K 1TB Fusion not a great deal

[twilexia]

again, show me an independent review showing a huge difference between the 24 Gb and the 128 Gb version of Fusion Drive and I will agree with you ....

The minute you fill up the SSD portion of the Fusion drive, it means everything from now on is going to go to the HD portion. If the iMac was running a 15k RPM HDD, that might be slightly better, but with the 7.2k RPM HDD you're gonna feel the slowness. Apps will take longer to open. Files will take much longer to read and transfer.

It's not just about transfer rates. It's also about I/O. For example with a fusion drive, especially if you have your media stored on the same drive as your OS and your apps, your fusion drive is already working hard to run your apps and OS, and then on top of that once you start accessing media (audio/video/images), it's simply not going to have the I/O capacity to give you the same speeds as SSD.

Especially if you're doing any kind of real work (i.e. media production), you're almost far better off going with the SSD vs the Fusion, or at least going with the 128 Gb SSD vs the 24 Gb SSD.

 

[twilexia]

I have a 3TB Fusion, so I'm speaking from experience. I currently have about 600GB filled up. Obviously, the entire SSD is filled up besides the 4GB cache.

Whenever I transfer new media onto my drive, it's slow. When I try to import it to work on it in my applications, it's slow. When I try to record new media to the drive, it's slow. The 4GB cache is only doing so much, everything else is going to the HDD.

Of course I know the fusion drive is helping me to manage these files and applications, putting the most used ones on the SSD. But I can still feel the slowness, especially when compared to my MBPro (2012 version) which has an even slower SSD speed than the one in the iMac fusion drive.

 

[bent christian]

I have a 3TB Fusion, so I'm speaking from experience. I currently have about 600GB filled up. Obviously, the entire SSD is filled up besides the 4GB cache.

Whenever I transfer new media onto my drive, it's slow. When I try to import it to work on it in my applications, it's slow. When I try to record new media to the drive, it's slow. The 4GB cache is only doing so much, everything else is going to the HDD.

Of course I know the fusion drive is helping me to manage these files and applications, putting the most used ones on the SSD. But I can still feel the slowness, especially when compared to my MBPro (2012 version) which has an even slower SSD speed than the one in the iMac fusion drive.

Of course new media is going to go to the hard drive. It would be silly for the Fusion system to put any new file on to the SSD immediateyl. I would not be surprised if the Fusion system gave priority to application files over , say, MP3s and MP4s. If you were accessing that new media over and over (number if times determined by the algorithm), it would eventually be moved to the SSD.

Speaking from experience myself - I have a 1TB Fusion (24GB SSD). If I use an application for the first time, it will be a bit slow the first time open. Second time...BAM...opened in just a few seconds. You can feel different files and application being moved. Once they have moved. The smaller Fusion drive seems designed for targeted use. I use it that way and it works well. People who are all over the place might not have the same good experience.

These benchmark theorists who have never used a Fusion system for any significant length of time should have enough sense to stay out of the conversation. They clearly have no idea what they are talking about.

 

[Ledgem]

Speaking from experience myself - I have a 1TB Fusion (24GB SSD). If I use an application for the first time, it will be a bit slow the first time open. Second time...BAM...opened in just a few seconds.

If you quit an application and then reopened it shortly after, it's unlikely that you're experiencing benefit from the SSD aspect of the Fusion setup. Rather, your application was never fully unloaded from the RAM, and the parts that needed to be re-accessed from the disk (whether it was the mechanical or solid-state drive) were minimal. You experience the same thing even with only a mechanical drive on board. If you reboot your computer, use your RAM so heavily that unused or idling programs are forced to be unloaded, or manually flush the RAM, then you'll experience the "first load" feeling again and will get to experience whether there's any benefit from the SSD.

I've never used the Fusion setup, but I did use a Seagate Momentus XT (the first drive that physically had a small SSD on-board with the HDD). Unlike the Fusion setup, the drive itself managed what was on the SSD, and it didn't have any benefits of queues from the operating system. It basically loaded on what was frequently accessed, and what ever was on received a nice boost. I used to go between Safari and Chrome every few weeks, and whichever browser I began to use regularly went from taking 2-3 bounces to load from taking less than one bounce before it was ready (after a reboot). My drive had a 4 GB SSD; the drives that had 8 GB had even better performance.

It makes sense that the larger the SSD, the more data can be loaded and the more acceleration there will be, in general. Fusion has a benefit over solutions like the Momentus XT in that OS X should be able to load key components of the operating system to the SSD from the start, and it knows what applications are. My guess is that Apple has data and knows that the key components of the OS and/or most users' applications can fit in 24 GB; that seems like too unusual a number to have been chosen at random otherwise. Regardless, Fusion can't predict the future, and it can't know what you're going to load next; it can only go from usage patterns. The more it can load to the SSD, the more chances it has to get it right. For that reason, a larger SSD should be better.

 

[Max(IT)]

The minute you fill up the SSD portion of the Fusion drive, it means everything from now on is going to go to the HD portion. If the iMac was running a 15k RPM HDD, that might be slightly better, but with the 7.2k RPM HDD you're gonna feel the slowness. Apps will take longer to open. Files will take much longer to read and transfer.

It's not just about transfer rates. It's also about I/O. For example with a fusion drive, especially if you have your media stored on the same drive as your OS and your apps, your fusion drive is already working hard to run your apps and OS, and then on top of that once you start accessing media (audio/video/images), it's simply not going to have the I/O capacity to give you the same speeds as SSD.

Especially if you're doing any kind of real work (i.e. media production), you're almost far better off going with the SSD vs the Fusion, or at least going with the 128 Gb SSD vs the 24 Gb SSD.

mate, Fusion doesn't work like that.
you don't "fill up" the SSD. the algorithm does that for mostly used files.
I have no doubts there are situations when the SSD portion will be filled up faster than the previous model, but I'm wondering what is the real world case difference.
I really would like to see some independent comparisons .

Nope.

For like...the 100th time:
The Fusion drive moves files back and forth across the SSD and the hard drive intelligently, as usage changes. The algorithm will split up portions of the OS, and of applications for best performance. The OS does not reside entirely on the SSD. Applications do not reside on the SSD in their entirety. When a user fills up the SSD portion of the Fusion drive, it does not mean everything from now on is going to go to the HD portion.

exactly that.
Most people here just complained because they saw 24 Gb vs 128 Gb screaming "greedy Apple!" all over the forum.
No one even asked to himself if Apple made an analysis about collected data from 1st get Fusion drives and realized 128 Gb was just overkill for a 1 Tb drive.

 

[zhaoxin]

mate, Fusion doesn't work like that.
you don't "fill up" the SSD. the algorithm does that for mostly used files.
I have no doubts there are situations when the SSD portion will be filled up faster than the previous model, but I'm wondering what is the real world case difference.
I really would like to see some independent comparisons .


exactly that.
Most people here just complained because they saw 24 Gb vs 128 Gb screaming "greedy Apple!" all over the forum.
No one even asked to himself if Apple made an analysis about collected data from 1st get Fusion drives and realized 128 Gb was just overkill for a 1 Tb drive.

It is very stupid to say that "No one even asked to himself if Apple made an analysis about collected data from 1st get Fusion drives and realized 128 Gb was just overkill for a 1 Tb drive."

As for all people who have 1TB, 2TB and 3TB, most of the space is for storage. For the system part, the OS X and the apps your use a lot, the disk size will be around 40GB - 90GB. It is very unlikely some one who uses 2TB or 3TB will have more than 1TB apps.

Therefore, 128GB SSD can cover all of the common files you need to boot and daily use. But 24GB SSD not. It can only covers parts of them and that is why you feel the Mac is slow.

Those people who buy 2TB or 3TB instead of 1TB, not because they use more apps over 1TB, but they have more photos, musics or videos.

 

[Max(IT)]

It is very stupid to say that "No one even asked to himself if Apple made an analysis about collected data from 1st get Fusion drives and realized 128 Gb was just overkill for a 1 Tb drive."

As for all people who have 1TB, 2TB and 3TB, most of the space is for storage. For the system part, the OS X and the apps your use a lot, the disk size will be around 40GB - 90GB. It is very unlikely some one who uses 2TB or 3TB will have more than 1TB apps.

Therefore, 128GB SSD can cover all of the common files you need to boot and daily use. But 24GB SSD not. It can only covers parts of them and that is why you feel the Mac is slow.

Those people who buy 2TB or 3TB instead of 1TB, not because they use more apps over 1TB, but they have more photos, musics or videos.

And it is very stupid to call out someone else as stupid when you clearly don't understand how Fusion Drives work ...
NOT ALL THE OS X should be stored on the SSD part of the drive, but only THE FILES of the system that are most frequently used. You (and I) don't really know how much space it takes. Apple does.

 

[Whiteyez]

And it is very stupid to call out someone else as stupid when you clearly don't understand how Fusion Drives work ...
NOT ALL THE OS X should be stored on the SSD part of the drive, but only THE FILES of the system that are most frequently used. You (and I) don't really know how much space it takes. Apple does.

That's true.

 

[twilexia]

And it is very stupid to call out someone else as stupid when you clearly don't understand how Fusion Drives work ...
NOT ALL THE OS X should be stored on the SSD part of the drive, but only THE FILES of the system that are most frequently used. You (and I) don't really know how much space it takes. Apple does.

The two of you are pretty much saying the same thing...

 

[Max(IT)]

The two of you are pretty much saying the same thing...

not even close ....

 

[bent christian]

The two of you are pretty much saying the same thing...

Wrong again. Given the numbers he threw out, zhaoxin is operating (incorrectly) under the assumption that entire applications reside on the SSD portion of the Fusion drive.

Max actually knows what he is talking about.

The Fusion system will only move those components that the algorithm sees as necessary for speed. The Fusion system will break up applications and OS components, moving them to the SSD...or back to the hard drive if usage changes. It's well-documented fact and has been talked about at least 100 times on this site, elsewhere even more. This activity is apparent to anyone who has actually used a Fusion drive for a significant length of time.

Not only is it stupid (stupid things: what a moron does) to butt into technical discussions with no knowledge of the topic at hand, it is also irresponsible.

 

[zhaoxin]

And it is very stupid to call out someone else as stupid when you clearly don't understand how Fusion Drives work ...
NOT ALL THE OS X should be stored on the SSD part of the drive, but only THE FILES of the system that are most frequently used. You (and I) don't really know how much space it takes. Apple does.

I do know what fusion drive does. However, 128GB SSD is much more than enough to do the trick. On the contrary, the 24GB SSD is little than less to do the trick. That is my point.

I say you are stupid not on if you know what fusion drive is or not. I say you are stupid because you say 24GB SSD is enough for 1TB user but 2TB or 3TB user requires 128GB. My point is there is nothing differences between 1TB user or 2TB or 3TB user on SSD part. They just need different storage space. But they all need a speedy system.

 

[Max(IT)]

I do know what fusion drive does. However, 128GB SSD is much more than enough to do the trick. On the contrary, the 24GB SSD is little than less to do the trick. That is my point.

I say you are stupid not on if you know what fusion drive is or not. I say you are stupid because you say 24GB SSD is enough for 1TB user but 2TB or 3TB user requires 128GB. My point is there is nothing differences between 1TB user or 2TB or 3TB user on SSD part. They just need different storage space. But they all need a speedy system.

The point is you, nor I, don't know if 24 Gb are enough or not, on a 1 Tb drive. We don't have access to statistical usage data, while Apple has.
They could have chosen the cheap way to maximize profits OR they could have made a choice based on actual data.
I'd like to see a comparison to judge it.